How Do You Fight Back In Big Media When Big Media Is Against You?

[Median Democrat]

1. Some folks have suggested that the DNC buy and run attack ads. The DNC has run attack ads, but they don't get free airplay in Big Media.

2. Some folks have suggested that Obama start striking back at McCain. Obama has done this, but oddly all the Big Media pundits are not repeating the talking points in unison such as the Big Media word of the day "Presumptuous."

This is the reality we are dealt with. Yet, I see a lot of whining on this board by folks who are upset or folks who don't understand, and just blame Obama, as they blamed every Democratic President or Presidential contender.

My response? Stop complaining and blaming the Democratic Presidential contender. Again. Obama has the best chance since Bill Clinton to weather this storm, because like Bill, he has a lot of natural charisma, so much so, that the GOP is attacking this charisma.

What do you want? A boring candidate? We had two (Gore and Kerry) and they were killed in the media for being too boring.

I will say there is no way the Democrats are going to win in Big Media. The GOP owns Big Media thanks to the death of independent media. So, if you think that some coordinated media attack is going to work, stop holding your breath. What works for the RNC will not work for the Democrats, because Big Media does not like you.

So, don't run away from your strengths. Continue to hold the big rallies. Continue to develop and distribute viral video attacks on McCain. Continue to network at a grass roots level to get out the vote, and most importantly continue to educate people on a face to face basis.

Are you waiting for News Corp (Fox) or Disnery (ABC) to see the error of their ways and stop coordinating with the GOP? Please. Stop being naive.

In short:

1. The race will get closer. Indeed, I EXPECT McCain to pass Obama in the polls a few times, because McCain's ads and attacks get so much free air play.

2. The key issue is what are you going to do about it? Simply hope that Big Media will suddenly start reporting in an unbiased manner? Or, are you going to get off your seat and fight and contribute to the preservation of our Democracy?

3. The big fight here, perhaps the biggest fight, is the fight that Big Media will not discuss. The growing concentration of control of media in just FIVE corporations:

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

These five corporations control what you see and hear, thus they control what you think. As this board shows, even DUers are vulnerable to corporate mind control.

[nc4bo]

1. Right on the $$$. Recommended reading here! nt

[Median Democrat]

4. Thanks! McCain Will Pass Obama In The Polls Occasionally, But . . .

How will you respond? Are you going to second guess the Obama campaign and demand that Democrats act like Republicans without Big Media support? Or, do we do what we are good at? Mobilize on the ground, with the help of unions, and through the use of alternative forms of media such as youtube, or through marches and demonstrations?

In my mind, this election is our last chance to realistically preserve democracy in an era where 5 major corporations control the vast bulk of media you see and hear, as discussed in this great article in the Nation: Who Will Unplug Big Media:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/mcchesney

[nc4bo]

8. Democrats have truly harnassed the power of the internet

I am beyond impressed with the grassroots' ability to pass along information, mobilize, share ideas and strategies and react as quickly has it is doing now. The internet has become a very powerful and important tool for the Dems moreso now than ever.

If folks step back for a second, they can see it.

We are a step or two ahead of them in that respect and can reach a HUGE number of people.

We can do this!!

[Median Democrat]

12. Polls Should Be Tightening - And McCain Will Pass Obama Occasionally - So...

The real issue is going to be how we respond individually? A lot of folks will tempted to say the Democrats should go negative! However, this assumes an unbiased media that will treat a negative Obama attack on McCain equally with a McCain attack that still has numerous media types complementing McCain's tactics. Big Media is not neutral in this fight.

The real key has to be in the areas where the Democrats are strong. Its like a basketball game. Big Media is homecourt for the GOP, but the Democrats still need to play in that homecourt. They can't give up.

However, where do the Democrats have homecourt advantage? In alternative media such as Youtube, where we can document and expose the McCain lies that are hidden by the MSM, and at large events and rallies where Obama can give his message directly to the American people without the filter of a talking head.

The Big Media reporters are like crooked referees who are paid to aid McCain, however, they need to do so subtly or people start to suspect that the game is rigged. The Democrats and the Republicans are the teams. The television viewers are the voters who are watching this bit of theater, and perhaps none the wiser that the game is rigged, and the referees are calling the game in favor of the Republicans.

Of course, we can just get pissed, or we can do something about it. Contribute. Volunteer. Talk to people one on one. This isn't going to be easy. Its David versus the Goliath of Big Media.

[Ron Green]

2. A big fight is always more entertaining than discovering a truth,

and entertainment is what Big Media are all about. Rational public discourse, as important (and rare) as it is, is boring. Any classroom full of 8th-graders will rush to the door when a fight breaks out in the hallway, and American TV watchers are no different.

As long as Republicans have war, crime, sleaze, fear and loathing in their arsenal, and Democrats are pushing tolerance, sustainability, knowledge and fairness, we'll lose the audience.

[Median Democrat]

6. Big Media - Its Like The GOP's Homecourt Advantage

Big Media is owned by corporations that are partial to the GOP. So, fight the good fight, but you cannot expect to win by playing on the GOP's homecourt. Therefore, we need to take the fight to our homecourt through grass roots, and alternative media.

There is a reason why the hometeam always wins, and in Big Media, the GOP is the hometeam. So, stop relying on Big Media alone.

[Fleshdancer]

3. I would like to see a YouTube video titled Two Minutes Hate:

Then post every nasty headline and soundbite from the MSM for two minutes. End the video with a quote from 1984.

Not the most original I suppose, but it would be easy to do considering Media Matters collects the insanity already.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. KICK AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY RECOMMENDED!!

Don't know how Obama and the Dems effectively fight back when the M$M controls the rules of the game and tout Repuke talking points? The mainstream press is colluding with the Repug Party. This has always been the case.

Again, until Americans wise up and understand what's going on, we won't win. We have to work three- for times as hard and that means from the grassroots level. The blogs, alternative media have been fantastic! I would lose my mind if it weren't for the alternative media and their brave efforts to push the M$M towards the truth.

Other than that, we just have to work harder.

Don't get angry, get busy!!!

[treestar]

7. k&R

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

9. Spot on. I'm sick of hearing that Obama should fight back--HE IS,

and very nicely, thank you. It's just that it doesn't get play--and some on this very board have suggested that the Obama campaign can change that somehow--but they can't tell us how.

One of the most shameless DUer doing this I will no longer engage, period.

Edit: "Error: you've already recommended that thread."

[ladjf]

10. I don't know that you can. You've just got to hope that a majority of

Americans can see through the con.

[IndependentDem]

11. K&R

:kick:

[Supersedeas]

13. they have to be very selective in who are appointed spokespersons, HAROLD FORD won't cut it.

[ellacott]

14. That is so important

It's so discouraging when you know more that the spokespersons. It's also frustrating that they are so weak.

[blm]

15. Kerry was NOT boring. The corpmedia edited his campaign drastically. YOU should know that instead of

reifying the spin, even as you decry it. And ditto for Gore. Why do you pretend the corpmedia was only right about two of our best and most HONEST Democratic leaders?

Clinton was an A1 bullshitter who fucked over the entire Dem party as he protected BushInc throughout the 90s - Jackson Stephens and GHWBush made SURE Clinton won in 1992. If THAT is your type of Dem hero, you don't need to be on Obama's team.

[Median Democrat]

17. I Liked Howard Dean, And Compared To Dean, Kerry Was Boring

I still gave more to Kerry than I have to any candidate, enough in fact to go to a nice dinner, but Kerry was not exactly Mr. Charisma. Let me put it this way, in terms of excitement factor, how would you list the following three:

1. Howard Dean.
2. John Edwards.
3. John Kerry.

Does anyone want to seriously argue that Kerry generates more excitement than Dean or Edwards? The main reason why Kerry got the nomination, is because Democrats thought that his military background would give him the gravitas to deal with Bush post-9/11. However, there are lot of Democrats who have a lot more charisma than Kerry.

As for Gore, he has loosened up a bit, so he is okay, and I think he is more charismatic than Kerry. However, I preferred Bill Bradley in 2000. I am not saying that Bradley would have one, but I liked Bradley back then.

This is just me. If you think that Kerry is more charismatic than Dean and Edwards or that Gore was more charismatic than Bradley, you are entitled to that opinion.

[blm]

18. Baloney - the corpmedia would've eviscerated ALL of them in 2004 if they were the nominee.

Kerry was always considered serious and charismatic UNTIL the last election cycle. Did you want people to BELIEVE Dean was a crazed radical loose cannon the way the corpmedia portrayed him?

Should any ONE of us believe that Edwards was a pretty boy with no gravitas because of the way the corpmedia edited him and would have CONTINUED to portray him if he had become the nominee?

Kerry has guts and brains that few in DC have EVER HAD. He has uncovered more government corruption than ANY LAWMAKER in modern history and would have opened the books on IranContra and BCCI after all these years and that didn't excite you?

You are EXACTLY the type of fairweather Dem that the corporate media COUNTS ON. You have no respect for integrity and open government and prefer to be entertained. Exactly what the media wanted when it STARTED dumbing down the electorate. Entertainment is far more important than open government.

[Median Democrat]

21. Read My Post Again - I Was Pro-Howard Dean - Why Are You Slamming On Edwards?

And I liked Edwards, too. Try reading my post again. Also, did you miss the part where I noted that I gave a lot to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I did not like the fact that Kerry voted to authorize the war, but I got over that.

You say, "Dean was a crazed radical loose cannon." Disagree. The MSM portrayed him this way.

You say, "Edwards was a pretty boy." Disagree. Edwards was a smart guy who I had the pleasure to hear in person. Get your facts straight. Of course, Edwards also voted to authorize the war, which is why I supported Howard Dean initially.

You assert that "Entertainment is far more important than open government." Wrong. If you believe this, you are in the wrong party my friend. Perhaps Steve Schmidt and John McCain are for you.

The fact of the matter is that Big Media is not unbiased in these elections. They have a heavy bias against the Democrats, which is why Democrats need to work harder and give more for the Democrats to overcome the odds, and retake the White House.

[blm]

31. YOU are the one who needs to RE-READ. I SAID the MEDIA portrayed Dean and Edwards like

that and would have ramped it up if either was the nominee.

I questioned YOU - would you WANT us to BELIEVE the corpmedia's portrayal of Dean and Edwards? No. I do not and would NEVER believe the corpmedia storyline against a Dem.

You did. You do. And you are FURTHERING the corpmedia narrative against Kerry even today.

I support Kerry because he's the BEST open government lawmaker this nation has had in 35 years. YOU are the one hawking the entertainment value of lesser contributors to this nation's wellbeing. And the 'charismatic' Clinton you admire was successful BECAUSE he was groomed to protect BushInc by the scum BCCI criminal Jackson Stephens.

[politicasista]

23. Exactly

It's amazing that people complain about the media yet buy into everything they fabricate. But only if it's not about their favorite candidate/liberal, it must be true!

[Median Democrat]

25. Its Amazing How People Who Did Not Do Squat For Kerry Claim To Support Him

It is interesting people criticizing my support for Kerry, yet are silent with respect to what they did for John Kerry in 2004. I did meet ups, attended local democratic gatherings, attended rallies, distributed information regarding Kerry/Edwards events to friends and families and directed them to fundraisers, contributed until it hurts and burned up the blogs supporting Kerry and Edwards, and distributed copies of the documentary Outfoxed to people educate them about the influence of the media. Yet, you want me to lie, and say that I did not originally supported Howard Dean? Please.

Now, do I think that Howard Dean would have won? I think the odds would have been against him as they were against Gore, Kerry and now Obama due to the media. Still, would have I preferred Howard Dean. Yes. Did that stop me from working my a&* off to get Kerry/Edwards elected in 2004? No.

So, since you are throwing stones, what exactly did you do back in 2004 to get Kerry/Edwards elected?

[politicasista]

26. I didn't or have never thrown any stones. I am being civil without attacking anyone

I hung out and posted at the Kerry blog. And read there and seeing people smackdown any false statements about him there and did the same in the real world. I watched all the debates and found them impressive.

I am a very civil poster and don't cause much trouble. I have not or never questioned your (or anyone's) support for Kerry or Dean. Both men are doing good things helping Obama win the WH. That's what we all want.

I can't speak for blm, but it seems like you may have bought into the media spin about Kerry and Gore. (See post above about Kerry having charisma in 2000, but none in 2004, while the media said that and Gore was a "bore.") I am all about pushing a candidate's strengths. Notice that the media is saying the same thing about Obama. Obama is fighting back (maybe not like some here wish), but he is fighting everyday. It's true the media is giving him more coverage, but when they do, it's negative.

I have agreed with your posts, and am not questioning your support for Kerry in the past or support of Dean. We just don't need to buy into the spin about our past nominees.

That is how Obama will win the presidency. We have to help him get his message out. We have to be the media.



We just disagree. Peace.

[blm]

30. Why do you even ASSUME that we did not? You think this passion was born yesterday?

I wanted a President Kerry since I first began to understand what was really going on in IranContra, and especially during his courageous exposure of BCCI that would have PREVENTED the rise of global terrorism and put BushInc in jail long ago but for Clinton's protection of the secrecy and privilege of Bush and his cronies throughout the 90s.

Some of us didn't wait for a 9-11 to notice what was really going on in the world, and some of us KNEW that John Kerry was feared by the entire DC powerstructure BECAUSE of BCCI and its many outstanding matters that he would have re-opened.

If YOU didn't support Kerry enthusiastically for HIS record and HIS devotion to OPEN and HONEST government then YOU didn't serve him or the country as well as you think you did in 2004.

[Median Democrat]

32. Curious, What Did You Do In 2004 To Get Kerry Elected?

I laid out my cards regarding some of the stuff I did in 2004. I understand that you support John Kerry, and that you presumably voted for him. I admit, I am not Kerry's best fan, but I told you the things I did to try to get him and Edwards elected in 2004. But, for example, in the era of Big Media, what kind of things did you do as a big Kerry supporter to try to get him elected?

This is my point. Simply liking someone is not enough. I have more respect for the former Hillary Clinton supporter, who puts aside the primaries, and gives, walks precincts, attends rallies, and convinces friends to vote for Obama, then I do for the biggest Obama supporter and fan who does nothing more than casts a ballot for Obama.

This year, its Obama, and I'm doing some of the same stuff, though due to the economy, I will be hard pressed to match my financial contributions. What kind of things have you done or plan to do for Obama in 2008?

[blm]

33. Again, why do you assume we didn't? Most everyone here knows I worked Dem HQ

in NC and blogged regularly around the Dem sites to EDUCATE those Dems who didn't know enough about the most courageous lawmaker and best open government advocate this nation has ever run for President.

If you were 'no fan' then that shows that you don't know as much about your nation's recent history as you think. What did YOU REALLY do? Send money, volunteer and bemoan the fact that you were 'no fan' of Kerry's? That last bit would have wiped out the first two, ever think of THAT?

If not for the efforts of John Kerry, this nation would be in its second decade of Full-On Fascism by now.

If you understood IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning you would know that.

[Median Democrat]

35. You Are Welcome!

Well, then I guess you should be glad that I worked my a&* for the Kerry campaign. I assume you are now doing the same for Obama?

[karynnj]

37. I think Kerry generated more excitement

in mORE PEOPLE than either Dean or Edwards - that's why he won the primary - not his almost 4 years in the military. I know many here preferred Dean or Edwards, but Kerry had by far the most interesting life. (I have seen both Gore, as a candidate, and Kerry speak - there is no comparison - Kerry is by far the better more compelling speaker and the one who generated more excitement. (I only saw Edwards on CSPAN and he was nowhere near as good as Kerry.)

He was a genuine war hero, an incredible activist for ending the Vietnam war and for treating teh veterans as they deserved, he was a prosecutor who indicted and convicted MAFIA figures and set up the first rape counseling in a MA DA's office, then as a private lawyer he and his partner won a case proving someone was falsely convicted of murder and on death row, as LT Gov he got the NE governors to agree to the first Cap and Trade for acid rain, as Senator he was the only Senator with the guts to investigate the illegal arming of the Contras and BCCI.

That is far less bland than a career as an excellent trial lawyer or being a moderate governor of VT.

The fact is that even with the media pushing him, Edwards never really generated that much support - in either 2004 or 2008. Dean did generate real intense support in a segment of the Democratic party - but it was too small a segment and he turned off many of the remainder. (I don't include myself there - in 2003, I just wanted either him or Kerry.)

I frankly think that had Kerry had the media that Obama has had, he would be President. No one I can think of ever went as far as Kerry did with so little media support.

[politicasista]

22. Kerry had charisma in 2000, but none in 2004 and Gore was a "bore", said the MSM

Obama himself shows more respect for Kerry than most here do.

[Whisp]

16. Thank you! this should be stickied. K&R!

[FrenchieCat]

19. Folks need to stop whining and complaining and start writing

letters to the media and to newspapers as LTTE!

If you think that they would ignore thousands of people writing, I don't believe so.

But of course, most folks ain't doing jack shit...and so the media will win, and we will lose....
and believe you me, we have got an awful lot to lose....as this is the last election before we are
so throughouly fucked until that will be our permanent state of being.

[Major Hogwash]

20. You can't - this is how they beat Kerry in 2004.

A yellow dog could have won that campaign, but after the mainstream media got done with Kerry, you couldn't tell if he was a Vietnamese sympathizer, a former VC agent, or a clone of Al Gore.

The MSM lied about Kerry and now they're lying about Obama.

[danielet]

24. Obama will prove Obama great; we must prove McCain is scum

Everything Obama has to offer as policy is useless. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE IS SURPRISED WHEN OBAMA SAIS SOMETHING BRILLIANT OR OFFERS A GREAT SOLUTION TO A REPUBLICAN-MADE PROBLEM IN AMERICA.

In fact, that's the problem. For millions for whom this is a RACE RACE, McCain is like the "Great White Hope" everyone hoped would beat wise-mouth Black boxer, Mohamed Ali. EVERYONE KNEW THAT ALI WAS A BOXING GENIUS AND THE WHITE GUY WAS ONLY A STREET FIGHTER. BUT THE FACT THAT THIS BUM WAS WHITE MADE HIM THE GREAT WHITE HOPE FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANTED SOME WHITE GUY TO SHUT UP THAT WISE-ASS BLACK GUY.

And get this....all these boxing fans would otherwise cheer Ali as a national hero and pay $150 to see him fight on closed-circuit-TV. THE POINT IS THAT RACISM IS AN ILLOGICAL CRAZY THING THAT MIXES UP ALL SORTS OF APPLES AND ORANGES TO MAKE THE BRAIN A FRUIT CAKE-- it's/it's not RACISM????

McCain never accomplished a thing all his life. He was a TOTALLY "D" PERSON because he never focused on anything and never wanted anything enough to discipline himself. Nothing was worth his making sacrifices and focusing on trying harder rather than having fun.

Obama is a white-black. Like us foreigners when we came to America, he believes that he has to be ten times better than the next guy to compete equally with the next guy. So he puts forward thoughtful policies and very constructive ideas, always being polite with his opponents because ultimately OBAMA WANTS TO UNITE AMERICA-- NOT DIVIDE IT-- SO HE CAN CHANGE IT. That means always suffering a handicap because of his race and suffering it with dignity, never complaining, just showing that he is the best man for the job by being ten times better than the next guy!!!

WE immigrants to America all went through that. We understand it; but we don't understand why an American has to go through the same supra-qualifying a foreigner has to go through, just because he is BLACK. Obama's answer is crystal clear: NEVER MIND WHY, I'LL JUST BLOW PAST THE BAR-- WAY PAST THE BAR-- AND QUALIFY, FAIR OR UNFAIR.

FINE BUT WHILE OBAMA PROVES HE MEETS THE STANDARD TEN TIMES OVER, WE MUST PROVE THAT MCCAIN IS TEN TIMES BELOW THE STANDARDS...SO SHOW-UP MCCAIN AS LIAR/FRAUD WHO WANTS PRESIDENCY BY ANY MEANS WITH TRUTH...EXPOSE *ONLY* WITH TRUTH!!

[RayOfHope]

27. absolutely. I'm going to stick to watching his speeches online and stay away from MSM

even tho I do that 99% of the time anyway. I don't need their interpretation and distortion of the Obama campaign.

[Median Democrat]

28. Even Better, Spread The Word Tell People To Look At The Facts And Make Up Their Own Mind

I would say send them youtube links of Obama at speeches or townhall meetings, and ask them to make up their own mind, rather than listen to what media tells them. For example, when they say Obama does not have a sense of humor or is aloof, then look at Obama at Missouri or even in Florida where he dealt with a difficult Heckler. If they say Obama does not have an understanding of foreign policy, send them a link of Obama being interviewed in Germany very aggressively by either Brian Williams, Daniel Gibson or Tom Brokaw. In other words, try to get people to make up their own mind, rather than listening to the talking heads on Big Media. Take an undecided friend with you to an Obama event if you can.

Also, send them links of McCain trying to respond to such questions, including the 1 where he responds to whether his campaign is negative or the 1 of the nice ones that show McCain completely flip flopping on issues like taxes, abortion or offshore oil drilling. Who sounds presidential and knowledgeable, and who looks bitter and confused?

If each of us, can convince 1 person on the fence to make up their own mind, rather than listening to what Big Media tells us what to think, then we will be far better off.

[RayOfHope]

29. Absolutely.

I was lucky enough to be at the MO town hall meeting, and have had a new fire lit under me! In fact, I managed to convince several family members who were on the fence because of his perceived arrogance to vote for him, after being better able to explain some of his stances on taxes and education.

[doc03]

34. It ain't easy, ask Hillary Clinton.

[Median Democrat]

36. Agree - Have A WholeThread Devoted To Hillary

Hillary, or more precisely Mark Penn and Harold Ickles, ended up trying to run a negative campaign against Obama, as discussed in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6571279&mesg_id=6571279

As discussed in that thread, the Karl Rove strategies depend on a cooperative media that provides (1) hours of free airplay for attack commericials, and (2) does not run any attack stories on the candidate running the ads. In Hillary's case, although Fox News was running the attacks ads against Obama on endless loop (the 3 AM Ad), Fox and other Big Media outlets were also nailing Hillary with stories talking about how polls showed that she was being trusted less and less. Notice, that no such stories are being run on McCain with near the frequency they were run against Hillary.

Why? Big Media bias. If Big Media could undercut both Obama and Hillary, all the better. Its Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, but on a larger, but more discrete scale.

<>